Gold Member

Expand
Collapse

My Office prosecuted Penn State’s previous president because he put the institution’s reputation over the safety of children. That’s unacceptable, we will never tolerate it, and we will always do what’s necessary to defend those who #SpeakUp.https://t.co/LQyl7cKMvp

Expand
Collapse

My Office prosecuted Penn State’s previous president because he put the institution’s reputation over the safety of children. That’s unacceptable, we will never tolerate it, and we will always do what’s necessary to defend those who #SpeakUp.https://t.co/LQyl7cKMvp

Expand
Collapse

Oh FFS. Just stop.
This is just such a bullshit line - I can't believe anyone is still using this years later.

The FACT is that Second Mile CEO Jack Raykovitz knew damned well once Tim Curley sat with him that Jerry was flagrantly accessing a Second Mile minor outside of his prescribed role with the program.

That is a HUGE RED FLAG for anyone in a youth serving organization. Jack failed to speak with this Second Mile teen as to why the hell he was with Jerry in the first place. It doesn't matter what Tim told him, the FACT REMAINS it's flagrant out-of-program contact. Jack failed to speak with this teen's parents about any permission forms. Jack failed to sit Jerry down and implement a written safety plan (as per state mandate).

Jerry could have been sitting on the floor with this teen, playing with a box of kittens, and it was still out-of-program contact. That's on Jack and that's on Second Mile.

Please step up your game here or we're all going to think that you've been benefitting from Second Mile leadership's ....uh...."services".

Expand
Collapse

so if i told the police i saw my neighbor raping a little boy they should just ask the neighbor about it and then move on if he denies it?

Click to expand...

I wanted you to find out if it is proper procedure (or even a remotely good idea) for Spanier and the PSU admins (even Schultz) to go looking for the boy as you stated. In your completely different example, I would be asking that once you told the cops, should you go looking for the boy yourself? That is what you said you wanted Spanier to tell his admins to do. They told TSM which in many peoples opinion is akin to covering it up. If TSM followed the proper guidelines, it should have been more than enough.

Expand
Collapse

Three days after Judge Stabile authored a 2-1 Superior Court decision upholding Spanier's conviction, Spanier got an email from an old colleague, Philip McConnaughay, former dean of the Penn State Dickinson School of Law [DSL] from 2002 to 2013.

In the email, McConnaughay informed Spanier that "between 2003 and 2006, Judge Stabile, then a lawyer in private practice, was a leader of a group of DSL alumni who were stridently opposed to Penn State's plans to either relocate DSL or to create a second campus of DSL in State College," Spanier's lawyers wrote.

While leading that opposition, Stabile "made critical personal comments about those Penn State administrators, including Dr. Spanier, who favored such a plan," Spanier's lawyers wrote.

"Emails and documents from that period that Dr. Spanier has obtained in the past few days demonstrate that there are grounds for Judge Stabile's recusal from participation in this matter. In light of this information, the Court should vacate the Panel's decision, and the matter should be reassigned and reargued before another panel or before the Court en banc."
​

Expand
Collapse

Three days after Judge Stabile authored a 2-1 Superior Court decision upholding Spanier's conviction, Spanier got an email from an old colleague, Philip McConnaughay, former dean of the Penn State Dickinson School of Law [DSL] from 2002 to 2013.

In the email, McConnaughay informed Spanier that "between 2003 and 2006, Judge Stabile, then a lawyer in private practice, was a leader of a group of DSL alumni who were stridently opposed to Penn State's plans to either relocate DSL or to create a second campus of DSL in State College," Spanier's lawyers wrote.

While leading that opposition, Stabile "made critical personal comments about those Penn State administrators, including Dr. Spanier, who favored such a plan," Spanier's lawyers wrote.

"Emails and documents from that period that Dr. Spanier has obtained in the past few days demonstrate that there are grounds for Judge Stabile's recusal from participation in this matter. In light of this information, the Court should vacate the Panel's decision, and the matter should be reassigned and reargued before another panel or before the Court en banc."
​

Expand
Collapse

Ralph Cipriano has another exccellent blog post today, this one entitled "Spanier seeks recusal of judge for undisclosed conflict." The post details Spanier's latest efforts to overturn Superior Courts 2-1 decision to deny Spanier's appeal of his misdemeanor conviction based on Superior Court Judge Victor P. Stabile (who wrote the majority opinion) apparent bias against Spanier as demonstrated in emails that Stabile wrote in 2005 objecting to Penn State's plans to either relocate Dickinson School of Law (DSL) to State College or create a second campus of DSL in State College.

It will be interesting to see how Spanier's appeal is adjudicated. It seems like Spanier has a very strong case in his appeal based on both the law as well as the facts; however, this is Pennsylvania and it seems like the prosecution has some very strong allies in the judicial hierarchy and I wouldn't be shocked if Spanier's appeal is ultimately denied and Spanier will have to spend around 30 days incarcerated. I hope the appeal is either sent back to Superior Court or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decides to overturn the conviction.

Expand
Collapse

Ralph Cipriano has another exccellent blog post today, this one entitled "Spanier seeks recusal of judge for undisclosed conflict." The post details Spanier's latest efforts to overturn Superior Courts 2-1 decision to deny Spanier's appeal of his misdemeanor conviction based on Superior Court Judge Victor P. Stabile (who wrote the majority opinion) apparent bias against Spanier as demonstrated in emails that Stabile wrote in 2005 objecting to Penn State's plans to either relocate Dickinson School of Law (DSL) to State College or create a second campus of DSL in State College.

It will be interesting to see how Spanier's appeal is adjudicated. It seems like Spanier has a very strong case in his appeal based on both the law as well as the facts; however, this is Pennsylvania and it seems like the prosecution has some very strong allies in the judicial hierarchy and I wouldn't be shocked if Spanier's appeal is ultimately denied and Spanier will have to spend around 30 days incarcerated. I hope the appeal is either sent back to Superior Court or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decides to overturn the conviction.

This is Ralph's fifth in-depth blog post in the last several weeks. I think he is doing a fantastic job in reporting analysis of what has happened and in the various judicial proceeding. I think he is the best journalist or blogger around that has chronicled the events surrounding the fiasco. He seems very objective to me. Can anybody identify any thing he has clearly gotten wrong?

Expand
Collapse

Here is a link to Spanier's appeal of the Superior Court decision denying the appeal of his misdemeanor conviction. The 75 page filing seems like it makes a very strong case that the convictions should be overturned. However, this is Pennsylvania, and nothing that can happen within the Pennsylvania judiciary will surprise me given what has happened over the last 7 years.

Expand
Collapse

Here is a link to Spanier's appeal of the Superior Court decision denying the appeal of his misdemeanor conviction. The 75 page filing seems like it makes a very strong case that the convictions should be overturned. However, this is Pennsylvaania, and nothing that can happen within the Pennsylvania judiciary will surprise me given what has happened over the last 7 years.

Expand
Collapse

I agree that a lot of things are rigged in the Pennsylvania judiciary system, but I don't believe that everything is rigged. I still believe that there is a good chance that Spanier will not spend a day in jail. I think it is quite possible that Superior Court might get a second chance to make the right decision in Spanier's appeal of his misdemeanor conviction. If it comes down to it, I think that there is an excellent chance that the Pennsylvania Supreme will overrule his conviction.

Expand
Collapse

What he's saying is, if you made that report the police would tell you (the citizen making the report) go find the identity of the little boy before you report , that's your job not ours

Click to expand...

In what world? That's like saying if you reported seeing a child dragged kicking and
screaming into a passing car, the police would ask for the child's name. If you replied that you didn't know. the police would tell you to call them back when you do.

Expand
Collapse

Right, which I think is the point: anyone who criticizes C/S/S for "not looking for the little boy to make sure he was OK" is insane.

Click to expand...

I guess my original point is still unclear to some. A poster said that C/S/S should have looked for the identity of the victim. I doubt a single expert would ever agree with that statement no matter what MM reported to C/S/S. When I read those kind of posts, I ask them to contact an expert to see what they say. To take the word of an internet poster (including myself) is in a word foolish.

Gold Member

Expand
Collapse

What statute in PA makes TSM respsonible for out of program activities?

There's a reason why 4 consecutive AGs have ignored you.

Click to expand...

That's pretty simple - the CPSL makes TSM responsible when a report is made to them

As to why the AGs have ignored this - imho that is why people believe they (and the system) are/is corrupt.

If you asked an actual Child Welfare Professional in PA, they would tell you that its unfathomable (that's a big word for me) that TSM was not responsible once they received a report. And further, they wouldn't be able to even imagine of a scenario where the person who should be held most responsible for that report (JR) was able to serve as a witness for the prosecution.

Expand
Collapse

That's pretty simple - the CPSL makes TSM responsible when a report is made to them

As to why the AGs have ignored this - imho that is why people believe they (and the system) are/is corrupt.

If you asked an actual Child Welfare Professional in PA, they would tell you that its unfathomable (that's a big word for me) that TSM was not responsible once they received a report. And further, they wouldn't be able to even imagine of a scenario where the person who should be held most responsible for that report (JR) was able to serve as a witness for the prosecution.

Draw your own conclusions

Click to expand...

Pa. Superior Court lets Graham Spanier's child endangerment conviction stand
Updated Sep 13, 3:33 PM; Posted Sep 13, 3:33 PMFormer Penn State president Graham Spanier leaves after the close of his trial at the Dauphin County Courthouse in Harrisburg, Pa. in March 2017. The Pennsylvania Superior Court has declined a reargument on Spanier's appeal of his conviction on a child endangerment charge. Dan Gleiter | dgleiter@pennlive.com (Dan Gleiter | dgleiter@pennlive)
By Charles Thompson

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has refused a request by former Penn State President Graham Spanier's attorneys for new arguments on his 2017 child endangerment conviction.

The decision, dated Sept. 7, lets stand a three-judge panel's ruling earlier this summer that upheld the Dauphin County jury's original verdict.

Spanier was convicted after a week-long trial of exposing a child to further danger by failing to take a 2001 report of alleged child sexual abuse by retired Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky to police or child welfare authorities.

Prosecutors have argued that act of omission was a missed opportunity to put an earlier stop to Sandusky's serial predations on boys he was meeting through his Second Mile youth charity.

According to court records, Sandusky was charged with abusing at least four more boys between the 2001 incident and a 2008 report that ultimately put him on notice that he was under investigation.

Spanier has insisted he was never fully informed about the severity of the 2001 shower room incident at the heart of his case, and was of the understanding that it was just "horseplay."

But prosecutors brought charges against him after recovering emails and other documents that suggested he and his top aides were looking into the issue as potential child abuse from the first report, and that they apparently misled grand jurors about what they knew how how they responded to it.

More severe perjury and obstruction of justice charges lodged against Spanier were thrown out by a separate Superior Court panel in 2016 because of alleged attorney-client privilege issues before the grand jury.

But the child endangerment charges remained, and they have become the last obstacle in Spanier's personal crusade to clear his record - if not his name - of any responsibility for the Sandusky scandal at Penn State.

Spanier does have one appellate avenue still open: A request that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court take up his case. Bruce Merenstein, a member of Spanier's legal team, said Thursday that they do intend to seek that review.

The stakes are high for Spanier, 70, whose 16-year tenure at Penn State came to an abrupt end when he was pushed out of office by trustees in the midst of the gathering firestorm over Sandusky's November 2011 arrest.

First, he faces the prospect of 4-month prison term, with two months in county jail followed by two months under house arrest.

But aside from that, as long as Spanier's criminal conviction stands it will be difficult if not impossible for him to tackle the next phase of his battle - a defamation suit against Penn State's Sandusky case investigator, Louiis Freeh.

In that case, Spanier claimed Freeh's report to Penn State officials on the university's role in and responsibility for the Sandusky scandal unjustifiably smeared his reputation.

Senior Judge Robert J. Eby issued an order last September noting both sides in the Centre County Court case have agreed Spanier's conviction on a crime relating to the scandal make the defamation suit moot.

However, Eby has left Spanier the option to reinstate the case if he is successful in getting the child endangerment overturned.

Sandusky, 74, was convicted of the sexual abuse of 10 different boys in June 2012, and is currently serving a 30-year minimum jail term in a state prison in Somerset County.

Spanier remains a tenured faculty member at Penn State on paid administrative leave at an undisclosed salary.

A $600,000-per-year salary he was paid via a formal separation agreement negotiated in 2011 expired last year.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has refused a request by former Penn State President Graham Spanier's attorneys for new arguments on his 2017 child endangerment conviction.

The decision, dated Sept. 7, lets stand a three-judge panel's ruling earlier this summer that upheld the Dauphin County jury's original verdict.

Spanier was convicted after a week-long trial of exposing a child to further danger by failing to take a 2001 report of alleged child sexual abuse by retired Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky to police or child welfare authorities.

Prosecutors have argued that act of omission was a missed opportunity to put an earlier stop to Sandusky's serial predations on boys he was meeting through his Second Mile youth charity.

According to court records, Sandusky was charged with abusing at least four more boys between the 2001 incident and a 2008 report that ultimately put him on notice that he was under investigation.

Spanier has insisted he was never fully informed about the severity of the 2001 shower room incident at the heart of his case, and was of the understanding that it was just "horseplay."

But prosecutors brought charges against him after recovering emails and other documents that suggested he and his top aides were looking into the issue as potential child abuse from the first report, and that they apparently misled grand jurors about what they knew how how they responded to it.

More severe perjury and obstruction of justice charges lodged against Spanier were thrown out by a separate Superior Court panel in 2016 because of alleged attorney-client privilege issues before the grand jury.

But the child endangerment charges remained, and they have become the last obstacle in Spanier's personal crusade to clear his record - if not his name - of any responsibility for the Sandusky scandal at Penn State.

Spanier does have one appellate avenue still open: A request that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court take up his case. Bruce Merenstein, a member of Spanier's legal team, said Thursday that they do intend to seek that review.

The stakes are high for Spanier, 70, whose 16-year tenure at Penn State came to an abrupt end when he was pushed out of office by trustees in the midst of the gathering firestorm over Sandusky's November 2011 arrest.

First, he faces the prospect of 4-month prison term, with two months in county jail followed by two months under house arrest.

But aside from that, as long as Spanier's criminal conviction stands it will be difficult if not impossible for him to tackle the next phase of his battle - a defamation suit against Penn State's Sandusky case investigator, Louiis Freeh.

In that case, Spanier claimed Freeh's report to Penn State officials on the university's role in and responsibility for the Sandusky scandal unjustifiably smeared his reputation.

Senior Judge Robert J. Eby issued an order last September noting both sides in the Centre County Court case have agreed Spanier's conviction on a crime relating to the scandal make the defamation suit moot.

However, Eby has left Spanier the option to reinstate the case if he is successful in getting the child endangerment overturned.

Sandusky, 74, was convicted of the sexual abuse of 10 different boys in June 2012, and is currently serving a 30-year minimum jail term in a state prison in Somerset County.

Spanier remains a tenured faculty member at Penn State on paid administrative leave at an undisclosed salary.

A $600,000-per-year salary he was paid via a formal separation agreement negotiated in 2011 expired last year.

Click to expand...

Wow, Charles Thompson’s incompetence strikes again! This article tries to claim the emails contradict Spanier’s horseplay claim. If anything they confirm it. If it was a sex act and not horseplay, why would they suggest Sandusky possibly seek help and consider contacting CYS only if Sandusky is not cooperative? How would “Sandusky raped a boy, we told him not to do it again but he said no” play out. It’s ridiculous?

Not one person in the media seems to make the connection that Curley and Schultz viewed the incident as more of a crisis before speaking with McQueary and less of a crisis after speaking with him. That’s very significant. Another conclusion that could be drawn is that their initial belief that this could be a severe incident was because ironically, Joe Paterno did not like Sandusky, and thus may have spoke with an exaggerated amount of disgust when reporting what McQueary had told him to Curley and Schultz.

Expand
Collapse

The fix was in from the start. Spanier was not, is not going to get a fair shake in PA.

Click to expand...

He should have taken the stand. His lawyers seemed to put up no real defense in his trial. Honestly, it was surprising. You can’t say the fix was in when he didn’t bother to get his version of the story on the record.

Expand
Collapse

He should have taken the stand. His lawyers seemed to put up no real defense in his trial. Honestly, it was surprising. You can’t say the fix was in when he didn’t bother to get his version of the story on the record.

Click to expand...

That is not how I remember it. As I remember it, many experts said that the prosecution had no case and made no case. In fact, one of their star witnesses (Curley) turned while on the stand. After all of the charges were dropped with the exception of one, the jury twisted the child endangerment law to appease a holdout jurist so they could go home on a friday afternoon and enjoy their weekend. So after five years and millions spent to get a prosecution, they got a single misdemeanor that seems to not apply to the case.

Expand
Collapse

That is not how I remember it. As I remember it, many experts said that the prosecution had no case and made no case. In fact, one of their star witnesses (Curley) turned while on the stand. After all of the charges were dropped with the exception of one, the jury twisted the child endangerment law to appease a holdout jurist so they could go home on a friday afternoon and enjoy their weekend. So after five years and millions spent to get a prosecution, they got a single misdemeanor that seems to not apply to the case.

Click to expand...

As I recall (granted, that is getting less trustworthy by the day as I age) they didn’t really push McQueary on his story and Spanier didn’t take the stand. Is that correct? It was a questionable tactic when it happened and the results show that to have been the case.

Expand
Collapse

As I recall (granted, that is getting less trustworthy by the day as I age) they didn’t really push McQueary on his story and Soanier didn’t take the stand. Is that correct? It was a questionable tactic when it happened and the results show that to have been the case.

Click to expand...

That's right....but rarely do lawyers put the accused on the stand because it opens up so many other avenues to explore. When you think you've won the case, and it is hard to argue they didn't win as they got all charges dropped except for one misdemeanor, that's what you do. And McQ was a non-issue because he never talked to Spanier. The issue was "did Spanier know or not know" of JS's ongoing tmolestaion of kids? McQ wouldn't know that. In the end, there was at least one jurist that just wanted to convict Spanier of something, anything. And that is what they did, so they could go home on a Friday. Even though the prosecution lost almost everything, they claimed victory and the press was only too happy to go along. heck, even Schultz and Spanier got off with a single misdemeanor. How is it possible that Spanier was just as guilty as those guys?

Expand
Collapse

That is not how I remember it. As I remember it, many experts said that the prosecution had no case and made no case. In fact, one of their star witnesses (Curley) turned while on the stand. After all of the charges were dropped with the exception of one, the jury twisted the child endangerment law to appease a holdout jurist so they could go home on a friday afternoon and enjoy their weekend. So after five years and millions spent to get a prosecution, they got a single misdemeanor that seems to not apply to the case.

Click to expand...

It should be very clear that because of the media firestorm, any cases regarding the Sandusky Scandal have become situations of “guilty until proven innocent”. Under normal circumstances, with little to no media coverage, there’s no way any charges against Spanier stick. It’s too bad these defense attorneys can’t seem to accept that.

Expand
Collapse

That's right....but rarely do lawyers put the accused on the stand because it opens up so many other avenues to explore. When you think you've won the case, and it is hard to argue they didn't win as they got all charges dropped except for one misdemeanor, that's what you do. And McQ was a non-issue because he never talked to Spanier. The issue was "did Spanier know or not know" of JS's ongoing tmolestaion of kids? McQ wouldn't know that. In the end, there was at least one jurist that just wanted to convict Spanier of something, anything. And that is what they did, so they could go home on a Friday. Even though the prosecution lost almost everything, they claimed victory and the press was only too happy to go along. heck, even Schultz and Spanier got off with a single misdemeanor. How is it possible that Spanier was just as guilty as those guys?

Click to expand...

You may be right. However, if I was Spanier and was facing 2 months in jail it certainly wouldn’t feel like a win to me.
I don’t get the intricacies of the law that they were all found guilty of (it was the same charge for all three, right?). But just by name it sounded like Curley and Schultz could have been guilty. Spanier, by signing off on the “humane” approach may also have been as well.
And I get what you are saying about putting a defendant on the stand. But personally, I would rather be found guilty having given my account of how things happen than cry foul after being found guilty and not getting my account out in the courtroom.

Expand
Collapse

Here's how I read it: The defense didn't put up a defense because they were absolutely convinced the prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury, however, had to have no reasonable doubt in order to reach a verdict of guilty. These are polar opposites (in theory, at least), so either the jury made the wrong decision based on the evidence presented or Spanier's defense was completely incompetent. It can't be both.

Expand
Collapse

You may be right. However, if I was Spanier and was facing 2 months in jail it certainly wouldn’t feel like a win to me.
I don’t get the intricacies of the law that they were all found guilty of (it was the same charge for all three, right?). But just by name it sounded like Curley and Schultz could have been guilty. Spanier, by signing off on the “humane” approach may also have been as well.
And I get what you are saying about putting a defendant on the stand. But personally, I would rather be found guilty having given my account of how things happen than cry foul after being found guilty and not getting my account out in the courtroom.

Click to expand...

i tend to agree with you, but that is all hindsight. They could have put him on the stand and have a meltdown where he ends up serving several years. Regardless, if you follow the logic, if the jury was going to find him guilty of something, anything, in these trumped up charges, it probably didn't matter anyway. He could be Mother Teresa and would have been found guilty of something..

Expand
Collapse

Here's how I read it: The defense didn't put up a defense because they were absolutely convinced the prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury, however, had to have no reasonable doubt in order to reach a verdict of guilty. These are polar opposites (in theory, at least), so either the jury made the wrong decision based on the evidence presented or Spanier's defense was completely incompetent. It can't be both.

Well, I guess it can, but probably isn't.

Click to expand...

Everybody thought it would be difficult for him to get a fair trial. With that in mind, it was pretty negligent of his defense team to not offer up much of a defense. Thinking you have it won is not better than proving it.